Does sacking manager do anything?

[The Basket]

Just saying
Sacking manager (or coach) do anything?

Musical chairs?

I dunno.

 

[fubar57]

The side will win its next two games and then back to the slide under the new manger. The Canuck's are in the same boat right now. Their problem is that they can't play basic skills hockey

 

[pbehn]

Just saying
Sacking manager (or coach) do anything?

Musical chairs?

I dunno.

Of course, Watford sacked their manager and this meant Watford with their new elite manager walloped Manchester United 4-1. For Jose Mourinho getting the sack is a very profitable exercise, he has had a great career of payoffs. West Ham have a certain genius in this department, they sacked Moyes after he avoided relegation, employed a continental coach who flirted with relegation and then took Moyes back, they now sit in 4th position, proof positive that sacking someone does something, they just dont know what yet.

 

[SaparotRob]

Anyone remember Billy Martin?

 

[The Basket]

I am not a football (or soccer for the colonies) fan but I do read about Man U.

So what sacking manager get you?

Sacking captain of the Titanic is a bit late when it's broke in twain.

I am not clever enough for this.

 

[fubar57]

You have to blame someone and its easier to replace a manager than an expensive forward, mid-fielder, etc. An old saying is "Managers are hired to be fired" or some such nonsense.

 

[pbehn]

I am not a football (or soccer for the colonies) fan but I do read about Man U.

So what sacking manager get you?

Sacking captain of the Titanic is a bit late when it's broke in twain.

I am not clever enough for this.

My opinion....

Ole wasnt and isnt a manager he is a sort of coach. He was a club legend as a player mainly because of winning one game in the final of the Champions League. He is a Man united man through and through. Man U have a huge number of players who were signed or re signed or kept on purely because of their "profile" to make money but dont fit in any team you can construct from the squad. Ronaldo was the greatest striker in football, his legs have gone. Pogba is a great attacking midfielder but is a liability most of the time when he doesnt have a player like Kante winning the ball back for him. Rashford is a good but not great player but now Sir Marcus Rashford running a social media campaign and for some reason a national hero for missing a penalty. Maguire was bought to prove that Man U could spend more on a midfielder than Liverpool, but Maguire isnt Virgil van Dijk however he is England's captain and scores goals against San Marino. Donny van der Beek prooved that Man U could sign top young talent from a great team but they dont know what to do with him and have so many like him that he hardly gets a game, Sancho is the same, Man U can attract the best young talent in Europe! Well Sancho has never looked great for England, he may have been great at Dortmund but that is a different league, as Werner at Chelsea has found out. Man U in my opinion have gone back to an ancient philosophy, when you concede a lot of goals you sign a striker or winger like Steve Coppell.


As a player Ole was usually a substitute striker with Sheringham the main strikers were Cole and Yorke, so Man U had 4 strikers as good as or better than almost all teams single centre forwards they were up against. The mystery of that era is why Man U didnt win every year by 20 points.

 

[WARSPITER]

The side will win its next two games and then back to the slide under the new manger. The Canuck's are in the same boat right now. Their problem is that they can't play basic skills hockey

That is exactly what happens in Australian Rules Football - more times than I care to remember too.

Club boards and player groups can have too much influence and the Coaching staff are often the meat in the sandwich
when blame needs to be apportioned.